Joint family property does not cease to be joint family property when it passes into the hands of a single surviving co-owner. If a son is born to the only surviving co-owner, the said property becomes the undivided family property in his hands and in the hands of his son. The only difference between the right of a manager of a joint Hindu family over joint family properties where there are two or more co-owners and the right of a single surviving co-owner in respect of joint family properties is that, even if the first can alienate the common co-owners of family property only for legal necessity or for family benefit, the latter has the right to dispose of the co-ownership property as if it were his separate property as long as he remains the sole co-owner survivor and he can sell or mortgage the co-ownership property even if there is no legal necessity or family advantage or can even make a donation of the co-ownership property. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an original essay If a son is subsequently born or adopted by the sole surviving co-partner or if a new co-partner is inducted into the family following an adoption made by a widow of a deceased co-owner, an alienation made by the sole surviving co-owner before the birth of a new co-owner or the induction of a co-owner by adoption into the family whether by way of sale, mortgage or donation would however be valid, for the co-share born or adopted after the alienation cannot be oppose alienations made before his birth or adoption. In the instant case, the joint family property which belonged to the joint family consisting of Dharma-the appellant and his brother Miragu continued to retain the character of joint family property in the hands of Dharmathe appellant as Champabai, the widow de Miragu was still alive and continued to enjoy the right of maintenance over the said joint family properties. Pandurang, the first respondent to the adoption, became the adopted son of Miragu and became a co-owner of Dharma, calling him into the joint family properties. Once he became a member of the coparcener who owned the undivided family property, he had the right to bring an action for partition and separate possession of his half share in the undivided family property, of course, with the exception of those who had been alienated in favor. of third parties before adoption by Dharma - the appellant. Clause (c) providing for the provisions of section 12 of the Act would not be invoked in the present case since there was no "devolution" of joint family property to Dharma - the appellant who took took place on the death of Miragu and no “disposal” of property took place when Pandurang, the first respondent, was adopted. Keep in mind: this is just a sample. Get a personalized document now from our expert writers. Get Custom Essay The joint family properties continued to remain in the hands of Dharma-the appellant as joint family properties and that on his adoption Pandurang-the 1st respondent became a member of the coparcenary entitled to claim the same half, except for the items which had been sold by Dharma- appellant